why increasing strength doesn't (automatically) increase power

Phil Holman said:

Quoted message said:

I don't follow your argument here - but in any case, I find it telling that according to you,
circumferential velocity is regularly used by physicists, even though you dispute its
correctness.

Quoted message said:

Just as they regularly and incorrectly flip flop speed and velocity. Just because they do so
doesn't mean it's correct. Velocity being a vector, requires a frame of reference with a
coordinate system and there is no system defined that would explain circumferential velocity in
the way you intended (constant speed).

I never hear anyone say "circumferential velocity," but in my line of work people use polar
coordinates and talk about tangential (and radial) velocity all the time. Cartesian coordinates are
a pain in the ass if you are dealing with round things. A centripetal acceleration is usually
implied. One could argue that an object moving in a circle doesn't have a constant tangential
velocity, but everyone knows what it means. Besides, we also want to talk about velocity dispersion
in the tangential direction, and calling that "tangential speed dispersion" would be somewhere
between awkward and wrong.

Bike racing content: uh ... any errors are because I'm tired from riding today.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

With the abundance of caloric intake options available in our culture, your chances of looking like
a 14 year old boy are almost nonexistent.

Ok, someone post that picture of the naked pros again.

Quoted message said:

You're more likely to look more like an undefined blob, like most of the other dudes who hang
out in gyms.

No amount of training makes up for a [censored] diet, that's for sure.

--
Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are why they only open the
top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

Oh, you could, but you sacrifice other areas specific to cycling. In general the concensus has been
1/2 and 1/2 training leads to 1/2 and
1/2 results. OR, as Andy says, SPECIFICITY, SPECIFICITY, SPECIFICITY. I just don't think you can
surpass specific training with weights. Its not just cycling, either. A study (I'd have to look it
up) was done a few years back comparing two groups of rowers - one weight trainer group, the other
an interval/power group. The specific rowing group surpassed the weight trainers on the erg, but
not on the weights. You tell what you would do lift weights or row?

CH

Top Sirloin <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(chris) said:

My 2 cents is this: You would have to weight train year round and cut into you specific bike
training. Is it really worth it to spend that much time weight training vs. riding?

You don't think you could fit in two quick 30 minute workouts a week, something like:

warmup back squat 2x8 overhead press 2x10 chin-up 2x5 front squat 3x5

How much does your weight fluctuate between your peak fitness and your off season?

The question that occurs to me is if it's necessary to lift, say, 25% heavier to get the 5%
hypertrophy, or just lift 5% heavier for 6 months?

Assuming the latter, estimating the relationship between reps and 1 rep max means you only need to
gain about 1 rep per 2-3 months working around 6 to 8 reps, far far less then the 'try to gain a rep
every time you work out' advice sometimes given.

Ron

Andy Coggan said:

Weight training causes hypertrophy. Hypertrophy increases the potential to generate power. These
are well-known facts that I have never disputed. Where people's thinking goes awry is when they
assume that increases in strength resulting from weight training are due entirely to hypertrophy,
and therefore that increases in strength automatically result in an increase in maximal power.

Andy Coggan

"Ron Jenkins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The question that occurs to me is if it's necessary to lift, say, 25%

heavier

Quoted message said:

to get the 5% hypertrophy, or just lift 5% heavier for 6 months?

Assuming the latter, estimating the relationship between reps and 1 rep

max

Quoted message said:

means you only need to gain about 1 rep per 2-3 months working around 6 to

8

Quoted message said:

reps, far far less then the 'try to gain a rep every time you work out'

advice

Quoted message said:

sometimes given.

Since the movement-specific neural adaptations will always play a role, no matter how long you lift
it will still be necessary to gain substantial amounts of strength to induce any significant
hypertrophy.

Andy Coggan

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Since this comes up over and over and over again on multiple forums, I thought I'd try to clear up
some of the confusion:

home.earthlink.netid4.htmlOpen ↗

Ones ability to ride at high velocities for long periods of time is a function of VO2max, lactate
threshold and economy (efficiency). Since the forces required to reach VO2max are well below those
for maximal force and strength requirements, strength is not considered to be an important part of
endurance training.

TT winners are defined by the above aerobic cycling abilities, however a road race has many
different demands and strength could be deemed a limiting factor in producing the power required to
win a sprint or to successfully "jump", attack or counter attack.

So I think the real question is in regard to the road or aerobic athlete (as apposed to match/track
sprinter) is whether weight training that includes specific training adaptations are effective in
improving the maximal force and strength requirements for sprinting and attacking or whether this
can be more effectively achieved by on the bike training.

As a side issue one area where I think strength at lactate threshold may be a limiting factor could
be in the race Paris-Roubaix. When riding hard on the pave the oxygen carrying capacity is the
limiting factor of performance, however the top riders who would be outputting 400-500 watts on the
pave tend to pedal a bigger gear with a lower cadence – maybe the demands of riding the pave as
opposed to a smooth road require a somewhat lower cadence. This means that they require more
strength at each revolution and a greater muscle contraction. This might somewhat explain why the
Paris-Roubaix winners tend to be bigger men and are regarded as "strong" men.

"DESAY" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

While high RPMs are attained during the apex of a sprint wouldn't the usage of

near

Quoted message said:

maximal weight lifting be a neural contributor to perhaps the initial

stage of

Quoted message said:

acceleration in a sprint, or even a standing start?

See the standing start example at home.earthlink.netmiscOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

The reason I ask is because many of the top sprinters do use high

intensity

Quoted message said:

lifting in their regimen and there must be a good reason other then

because the

Quoted message said:

"other guy is doing it."

Weight training is a great way to induce hypertrophy. In addition, track cyclists will often have to
initiate a sprint from low, or even zero, velocity.

Andy Coggan

"DESAY" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've read that among the athletes that have used these methods of training

were

Quoted message said:

Valery Borzov and Ben Johnson who have utilized a 3RM squat load 10

minutes

Quoted message said:

before winning 100 meter championships.

Johnson was known for using a number of "methods of training." Probably not the best example....

[email hidden] (DESAY) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would suggest that the specific

Quoted message said:

nature of this weight/strength training would lead to both a hypertropic response and neural
adaptation that benefits an increase in power by virtue of an increase in strength during the
pedal stroke.

The former (hypertrophy), but not the latter (neural adaptation), unless joint angular velocities
were also similar to those encountered when pedaling. (Of course, if they were, then you wouldn't
be lifting heavy weights, you'd be sprinting.)

Andy Coggan

I never thought of sprinting as a continuous synchronization of power output, but rather a
disruptive diverse array of force production on the pedals. While high RPMs are attained during
the apex of a sprint wouldn't the usage of near maximal weight lifting be a neural contributor to
perhaps the initial stage of acceleration in a sprint, or even a standing start?

The reason I ask is because many of the top sprinters do use high intensity lifting in their
regimen and there must be a good reason other then because the "other guy is doing it."

Many Thanks Larry D

While I'm sure there's someone out there who'll either try to quantify it, or someone else who'll
tell me I'm wrong, I'll give you my ideas behind why sprinters do weight work, AND why strength
doesn't necessarily result in power.

It's all about the 'weakest link in the chain' principle.

If you can't turn the pedals smoothly and with force throughout the pedal stroke, it won't matter
how strong you are. You need to be able to apply the strength you have.

And, it really doesn't matter how smooth you are or how effectively you can apply what strength you
have, if that strength doesn't amount to squat (pardon the pun). If you need 2000 watts of power to
accelerate with the best of the sprinters, it really doesn't matter how smooth you are if you can
only muster enough strength to generate 1000 watts.

Since the power demands of sprinting, especially track sprinting, are so great the necessity for
strength is more apparent. The power demands for sustained speed are not so great and can be
accomplished often with almost no significant absolute strength.

Scott

In article said:

I never thought of sprinting as a continuous synchronization of power output, but rather a
disruptive diverse array of force production on the pedals. While high RPMs are attained during
the apex of a sprint wouldn't the usage of near maximal weight lifting be a neural contributor to
perhaps the initial stage of acceleration in a sprint, or even a standing start?

As you say, from about 40 rpm's to about 90+ rpm's a sprint is mostly a series of pushing more or
less straight down on the pedals with high force, but if that force is averaged out over one or more
pedal strokes or recorded (and averaged) only once per half second (like Andy has done in his
article) the (actual) forces applied appear smaller, e.g. 400 pounds of force applied for one-third
of a pedal stroke doesn't look like much when it's averaged over a whole pedal stroke or for a half
second. Sprinters are often known for their uneven application of force during a pedal stroke,
a.k.a. "stompers". A standing start or low rpm acceleration has much more evenly-distributed forces
around the pedal stroke when it's being done right.

Quoted message said:

Some of the things I came across involving max lifting and acute CNS responses are as follows:

(Poliquin, 1996) 1/6 Principle: Based on the neurological post-tetanic facilitation phenomenon,
which in essence shows that if you do a 6RM effort load within minutes of doing a 1RM set your
load at 6RM would be heavier then if you hadn't used the 1RM.

Siff & Verkohoshansky (1993) The "After-Effect Phenomenon" in which it's decsribed that a tonic
effect on the inertness is attained after maximal intensity dynamic and isometric efforts. The
tonic effect can be innervated as much as a day later.

My legs feel tired after doing resistance training on them the previous day but they also feel more
alive and ready.

Quoted message said:

I've read that among the athletes that have used these methods of training were Valery Borzov and
Ben Johnson who have utilized a 3RM squat load 10 minutes before winning 100 meter championships.

I noticed (L'equipe) that the French National Team would do their weight training in the infield
of a velodrome. I was curious if they were tying this methodology into their regimen. A fellow
cyclist did happen to a catch a french sports segment on TV showcasing the workout regimen of
Florian Rousseau. It showed Rousseau peforming squats followed up by standing starts. I cannot
verify the preciseness of the program as I was getting the info second hand but it seemed to be in
line with the above literature.

Perhaps they are using squats as a means to warmup and prepare for the harder effort(s) to come.

-WG

Quoted message said:

...whether weight training that includes specific training adaptations are effective in improving
the maximal force and strength requirements for sprinting and attacking or whether this can be
more effectively achieved by on the bike training.

As pointed out above, maximal force and strength are not required for sprinting and attacking in
road racing, probably the only time these factors come into play is at very low velocities (like
from a stop) with a big gear (i.e. track sprinters).

Tim Mullin said:

"DESAY" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've read that among the athletes that have used these methods of training

were

Quoted message said:

Valery Borzov and Ben Johnson who have utilized a 3RM squat load 10

minutes

Quoted message said:

before winning 100 meter championships.

Johnson was known for using a number of "methods of training." Probably not the best example....

Dude, don't diss neurological post-tetanic facilitation - it works.

--
Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are why they only open the
top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

"Top Sirloin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dude, don't diss neurological post-tetanic facilitation - it works.

Dude, Johnson didn't get his medal yanked for using neurological post-tetanic facilitation. Steriods
work, too. Using Johnson as an example of the success of anything other than _Better Living Through
Chemistry_ is folly.

(chris) said:

Oh, you could, but you sacrifice other areas specific to cycling. In
general the concensus has been 1/2 and 1/2 training leads to 1/2 and
1/ 2 results. OR, as Andy says, SPECIFICITY, SPECIFICITY, SPECIFICITY.
I just don't think you can surpass specific training with weights.

Depends on your goals. If you want to be the best cyclist possible - don't lift year round. However
if you're a masters racer concerned with bone density and overall health by all means do.

Quoted message said:

Its not just cycling, either. A study (I'd have to look it up) was done a few years back comparing
two groups of rowers - one weight trainer group, the other an interval/power group. The specific
rowing group surpassed the weight trainers on the erg, but not on the weights. You tell what you
would do lift weights or row?

Lift weights, because it's fun. Racing is a different kind of fun, more of a giant prolonged
adrenalin rush.

--
Scott Johnson "Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are why they only open the
top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

"Rik O'Shea" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since this comes up over and over and over again on multiple forums, I thought I'd try to clear
up some of the confusion:

home.earthlink.netid4.htmlOpen ↗

Ones ability to ride at high velocities for long periods of time is a function of VO2max, lactate
threshold and economy (efficiency). Since the forces required to reach VO2max are well below those
for maximal force and strength requirements, strength is not considered to be an important part of
endurance training.

Gee, I didn't know that. ;-)

Quoted message said:

TT winners are defined by the above aerobic cycling abilities, however a road race has many
different demands and strength could be deemed a limiting factor in producing the power required
to win a sprint or to successfully "jump", attack or counter attack.

Since maximal power is generated at far above zero velocity, strength does not limit maximal power -
didn't you read the article?

Quoted message said:

So I think the real question is in regard to the road or aerobic athlete (as apposed to
match/track sprinter) is whether weight training that includes specific training adaptations are
effective in improving the maximal force and strength requirements for sprinting and attacking or
whether this can be more effectively achieved by on the bike training.

Aside from your somewhat misleading emphasis on strength, I would say that you posed the question
quite well.

Quoted message said:

As a side issue one area where I think strength at lactate threshold may be a limiting factor
could be in the race Paris-Roubaix. When riding hard on the pave the oxygen carrying capacity is
the limiting factor of performance, however the top riders who would be outputting 400-500 watts
on the pave tend to pedal a bigger gear with a lower cadence - maybe the demands of riding the
pave as opposed to a smooth road require a somewhat lower cadence. This means that they require
more strength at each revolution and a greater muscle contraction. This might somewhat explain why
the Paris-Roubaix winners tend to be bigger men and are regarded as "strong" men.

Only at zero rpm can strength truly be considered to be limiting.

Andy Coggan

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

from about 40 rpm's to about 90+ rpm's a sprint is mostly a series of pushing more or less
straight down on the pedals with high force, but if that force is averaged out over one or more
pedal strokes or recorded (and averaged) only once per half second (like Andy has done in his
article) the (actual) forces applied appear smaller, e.g. 400 pounds of force applied for
one-third of a pedal stroke doesn't look like much when it's averaged over a whole pedal stroke or
for a half second.

As I indicated in the article, maximal force is typically around twice the average force. This
matters not to the conclusions drawn, however, since the maximal strength data I showed are also
based on the average for the complete pedal cycle. IOW, if you present the data as maximal, not
average, force, all that changes is the scaling of the y-axis, not the relationship between the
applied force(s) and strength.

Andy Coggan

"Top Sirloin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you want to be the best cyclist possible - don't lift year round. However if you're a masters
racer concerned with bone density

As a professional in the field of exercise science, I should be the last person to discourage
individuals from exercising. Even so, I think it is important to recognize that weight training is
actually a fairly weak stimulus for increasing bone mineral density, at least compared to impact
sports and/or drug treatment. So, if you're a master's racer who is *really* concerned about your
bone density (e.g., due to a family history of osteoporosis, results of a DXA scan), you shouldn't
blindly count on weight training to protect you.

Andy Coggan

[email hidden] (Rik O'Shea) wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Ones ability to ride at high velocities for long periods of time is a function of VO2max, lactate
threshold and economy (efficiency). Since the forces required to reach VO2max are well below those
for maximal force and strength requirements, strength is not considered to be an important part of
endurance training.

TT winners are defined by the above aerobic cycling abilities...

Although what you are saying makes some sort of sense how do you account for the fact that most good
TTs tends to be big guys who can crunch the big gears. All the really good guys seem to be strong
athletes - Induraion, Moser, Merckx, Ulrich...

In all the local clubs I've been attached to its always the big guys that trash the squirts when
it come to the TT or rolling a big gear. I think everyone has a story about some local big guy
who kills everyone on the flat by rolling a big gear.. and its always a big gorrilla never a
Pantani squirt.

"mr60percent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Rik O'Shea) wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Ones ability to ride at high velocities for long periods of time is a function of VO2max,
lactate threshold and economy (efficiency). Since the forces required to reach VO2max are well
below those for maximal force and strength requirements, strength is not considered to be an
important part of endurance training.

TT winners are defined by the above aerobic cycling abilities...

Although what you are saying makes some sort of sense how do you account for the fact that most
good TTs tends to be big guys who can crunch the big gears. All the really good guys seem to be
strong athletes - Induraion, Moser, Merckx, Ulrich...

How do you know what the maximal force generating capacity of any of these guy's muscles?

Quoted message said:

In all the local clubs I've been attached to its always the big guys that trash the squirts when
it come to the TT or rolling a big gear.

Try telling that to Eric Wohlberg. ;-)

Quoted message said:

I think everyone has a story about some local big guy who kills everyone on the flat by rolling a
big gear.. and its always a big gorrilla never a Pantani squirt.

All else being equal, absolute power output (either submaximal or maximal) scales with
bodymass^0.67. Frontal area and thus wind resistance, however, do not increase in the same
proportion - hence bigger riders tend to have an advantage on the flats, and this has nothing at all
to do with strength.

Andy Coggan

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy Coggan

Quoted message said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

from about 40 rpm's to about 90+ rpm's a sprint is mostly a series of pushing more or less
straight down on the pedals with high force, but if that force is averaged out over one or more
pedal strokes or recorded (and averaged) only once per half second (like Andy has done in his
article) the (actual) forces applied appear smaller, e.g. 400 pounds of force applied for
one-third of a pedal stroke doesn't look like much when it's averaged over a whole pedal stroke
or for a half second.

As I indicated in the article, maximal force is typically around twice the average force.

Where is the data collected *during* a sprint by a person who is good at sprinting while riding a
bicycle on a road that confirms this?

Quoted message said:

This matters not to the conclusions drawn, however, since the maximal strength data I showed are
also based on the average for the complete pedal cycle. IOW, if you present the data as maximal,
not average, force, all that changes is the scaling of the y-axis, not the relationship between
the applied force(s) and strength.

But that was for a standing start and people who are decent at those generate substantial power
during a longer portion of the pedal stroke. IOW, standing start data is not particularly relevant
for a sprint that begins at a higher rpm.

How about some data showing the max strength of individuals and their corresponding standing start
numbers and their speed attained during a sprint on a bicycle while on a road?

-WG